A. The law applicable to the tort due to the sinking of a ship on the high seas (=the law of the country of registry)

B. Whether the provisions of extinctive prescription under the Commercial Act apply to a claim for damages arising from a shipowner’s tort (negative)

(c) Whether the shipowner is liable for negligence in the event that a ship lacking navigation capability is sunken by providing it for maritime transport.

D. Whether the statutory interest rate in commercial damages liability arising from the tort is applied (negative)

A. Article 13(1) of the Conflict of Laws provides that the establishment and effect of a claim arising out of a tort shall be governed by the law of the place where the cause occurred, and that the law of the place where the act was adopted regarding the governing law of the tort and that where the cause occurred here includes not only the act of the tort but also the degree of the result of the damage. Since there is no law of the place of the act in respect of the tort resulting from the sinking of a ship navigating on the high seas, the governing law shall be the law of the country where the ship was loaded in accordance with the purport of Articles 44 and 46 of the same Act.

B. The short-term extinctive prescription under Article 121(1) and (2) of the Commercial Act, which is applicable mutatis mutandis by Article 812 of the same Act, shall apply mutatis mutandis only to claims for damages caused by nonperformance of obligation of a carrier under a contract of carriage, and shall not apply to claims for damages caused by a general tort. Moreover, the general prescription under Article 64 of the Commercial Act shall apply only to claims arising from a commercial activity and shall not apply

C. Since a vessel sailing along the scheduled sea route shall maintain a solid hull so as to be able to withstand risks ordinarily foreseeable, a shipowner who provided a vessel lacking navigation capability at the time of departure for maritime transport is negligent in the loss of the cargo by neglecting the duty to maintain the seaworthiness of the vessel, which is a condition of tort, if the vessel has been sunken due to the sinking of the vessel on the voyage without any shock of waves or marine floatings ordinarily anticipated by the vessel during navigation.

D. The statutory interest rate for commercial activities under Article 54 of the Commercial Act is applicable to an obligation arising out of a commercial activity or an obligation having the identity thereof, and is not applicable to an obligation for damages arising out of a tort other than a commercial activity

A. Article 13(b) of the Conflict of Laws Act: Articles 812, 121, and 64(c) of the Commercial Act; Article 787 of the Commercial Act; Article 54 of the Commercial Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 75Da107 delivered on December 13, 197, Supreme Court Decision 82Meu1533 delivered on March 22, 1983

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others (Attorney Song Jae-chul et al.)

Yangyang Shipping Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and 1 other

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na2001 delivered on March 28, 1984

The part of the judgment below against the defendant ordering the payment of damages for delay at the rate of six percent per annum shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The defendant's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal against the dismissal of an appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The second points shall be judged first for convenience;

Article 13 (1) of the Conflict of Laws provides that the establishment and effect of a claim arising from a tort shall be governed by the law of the place where the cause occurred, and that the law of the place where the cause occurred shall be adopted as to the governing law of the tort, and the place where the cause occurred shall include not only the act of the tort but also the result of the damage. Since there is no law of the place of the act in respect of the tort due to the sinking of a ship navigating on the high seas, the governing law shall be interpreted as the governing law of the ship in accordance with the purport of Articles 44 and 46 of the same Act.

According to the judgment of the court below, the defendant company loaded the original part of this case in accordance with the contract of carriage of maritime goods with Sc. K.K.V. (C.V.) of the defendant company in accordance with the contract of carriage of maritime goods with Sc. Sc. Sc. Sc., the defendant company left the port of Indonesia on February 5, 1980. The above ship's employees, including the defendant and the non-party 1, did not fulfill the duty of care for the maintenance of seaworthiness capacity of the above ship, although they discovered that the ship was in a state of non-entry from departure, they did not exercise the duty of care for the maintenance of seaworthiness capacity of the above ship, and the ship's employees, such as the defendant and the non-party 1, etc., did not take proper measures for safe navigation, due to the negligence on navigation, which found that the ship's vessel's vessel's sc., on the north High Sea of the same month was sunken together with the original part, and according to the entry of Eul evidence No. 1.

Thus, even if the sinking of the vessel is attributable to a series of continuous negligent acts committed by the defendant and the employees of the defendant from the departure from Indonesia to the high seas, it is the high seas where the loss of the raw trees loaded on the vessel is caused by the loss of the original trees loaded on the vessel. Since there is no action law against illegal acts on the high seas, it is possible to determine the Republic of Korea, the country of registry of the vessel, as its governing law.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no error in law.

2. On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the defendant's liability for damages caused by non-party 1's non-performance of obligation under the contract of carriage and tort against the non-party 2 who is the owner of the bill of lading, subrogated the right to the non-party 1's bill of lading, and recognized the liability for damages caused by tort. The court below rejected the defendant's liability as to the defense that the short-term extinctive prescription of one year under Articles 812, 121 (1) and 121 (2) of the Commercial Act has expired, the provisions concerning the short-term extinctive prescription of one year under Articles 121 (3) and 121 (2) of the Commercial Act concerning the short-term extinctive prescription of one year under Article 121 (3) of the Commercial Act concerning the non-party 2's non-performance of obligation to the non-party 3's claim for damages caused by non-party 1's non-performance of obligation to the carrier and the loss of the goods. This provision applies to the non-party 2's claim for damages.

The court below's determination that the short-term extinctive prescription provision of Article 121 (1) and (2) of the Commercial Act applies to tort liability is based on the premise that the short-term extinctive prescription provision of Article 121 (3) of the Commercial Act applies to the above tort liability, but that Article 64 of the Commercial Act, which is the provision of extinctive prescription as to general commercial claims, shall be excluded pursuant to Article 121 (3) of the same Act, is erroneous in the application of the law without examining the legitimacy

However, according to the records, it is recognized that the defendant notified the non-party comprehensive company (the holder of the bill of lading) of the sinking of the vessel and the destruction of the raw timber, which is the cargo, to the non-party comprehensive company (the owner of the bill of lading of March 3, 1980), that it is impossible to deliver the cargo. Thus, the above non-party comprehensive company of East Asia knew of the occurrence of the offender and the damage about the destruction of the raw timber, which is the cargo of this case, and it is clear that the lawsuit was filed on August 6, 1982 for which the three years have not passed since the above tort claim for damages has not yet expired, and therefore the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense for prescription is justified

3. The third and fourth points shall be considered.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party 1's vessel was non-party 1's vessel, which was non-party 2's vessel, and was non-party 1's vessel was non-party 2's vessel, and was non-party 1's vessel was non-party 2's vessel's vessel and was non-party 3's vessel's vessel was non-party 2's vessel's vessel was non-party 2's vessel's vessel's vessel's 1's vessel's 1's own 1's vessel and was non-party 2's vessel's vessel's vessel's 1's vessel was non-party 2's vessel's vessel's 1's vessel's 3's vessel was non-party 2's vessel's vessel's vessel was non-party 2's vessel's vessel's vessel's 1's vessel and its 1's vessel was non-party 2's vessel's vessel.

The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence by comparing the process of the evidence and the fact-finding with the records, and it cannot be said that the court below did not believe and rejected the written ruling (No. 19-2) of the marine accident inquiry court (No. 19-2) consistent with the defendant's defense, and the fact-finding reply (No. 46) to the prepaid association, and it cannot be said that the court below violated the rules of evidence. The shipowner who provided a ship lacking the ability to resist at the time of departure to transport at sea without prejudice to the shock of the ship's usual towing or marine floating material during navigation, was negligent in destroying the cargo by neglecting the duty to maintain the seaworthiness ability of the ship, which is a condition of liability for tort, and the captain or other employees of the ship did not have any error in the rules of experience as alleged by the defendant, and thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to whether the above marine accident occurred due to force majeure, as otherwise alleged by the defendant.

4. We examine the fifth point.

The provisions on limited liability of a shipowner under Articles 746 and 747 of the Commercial Act shall not apply to a shipowner's liability under Article 748 of the same Act with intention or negligence. In this regard, the court below is justified in recognizing that the defendant was negligent in neglecting his duty to maintain the seaworthiness of the ship and excluded the application of the above shipowner's limited liability provisions from the application of the above shipowner's limited liability provisions. There is no ground to argue that the court below did not indicate misunderstanding of facts or the defendant's negligence like the argument

5. We examine the sixth point.

Article 54 of the Commercial Code applies to obligations arising out of commercial activities or obligations having the identity thereof, and it does not apply to obligations for compensation for damages arising out of illegal activities, not commercial activities.

However, the court below recognized the tort liability against the defendant and ordered the payment of the amount at the rate of 6% per annum, which is a commercial statutory interest rate, with respect to the damages for delay. This is obvious that there was an error of law as to commercial statutory interest rate, and that it affected the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, it is reasonable to point this out.

6. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The defendant's appeal on the remaining part is dismissed. The costs of appeal on the dismissed part are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)